James Creighton Division Semi Finals - Bolshoy Ballet (2) vs Canadian Soo Marlboros (3)

[Sprague Cleghorn]

First pairs
Lionel Hitchman (A) - Eddie Shore
vs
Babe Pratt - Ray Bourque (C)

Hitchman is sufficiently better than Pratt defensively and sufficiently worse than Pratt offensively.
I don't see much difference as #2 D between them - both are at the same level more or less.
Bourque is just >> Shore.
I don't see decisive defensive advantage from your part, considering, that Shore was not that good defensively and Bourque was and considering Shore' bad temper that can course a lot of damage to his team.
Offensively it's huge my advantage. Bourque has amazing 75.5 VsX, wich is miles better than anything Shore can offer, and Pratt advantage over Hitchman is even bigger.
My huge advantage.

I would agree that offensively speaking your pairing is better, however, not for the reasons you state. You used regular VsX to compare Bourque and Shore's offense, but regular VsX is an extremely poor comparison method to compare offense between D of two different eras. In the period between the 20s and the emergence of Orr, defenseman scored a lot less compared to forwards, not due to them sucking offensively, but due to rules and the way the coaches preferred D to play the game. Shore is undeniably a top-10 D, strictly offensively speaking, yet on the regular 10 years VsX scale, you have Housley, Zubov, Robinson, Salming etc. ahead of him. The fact that he even made it on the scale speaks to how strong offensively he is.

As for Shore not being good defensively, that is incorrect. While doing research for special teams data, retrospective reviews of Shore often mentioned how good he was at breaking up plays. It wasn't all about his rushes up the ice. I think you're really underselling Shore here. If what you state of Shore is true, there would be no argument for him being a top-5 D all-time, much less, top-10 or 20. Question: where do you personally rank Shore?

Bernie Parent
Riley Hern
vs
Percy LeSueur
Miikka Kiprusoff

The only thing againt LeSueur is his time. He was considered the best goalie of his time, though. Parent was the best for two years and that was it. He was good for the rest of his career, but without that 2 years he is not even in the conversation. You may call me biased and all that, but I don't see much difference between Parent and LeSueur. And not because Lesueur is mine and Parent is not, but because I really fill that way. And my backup is way better.

Perhaps. The voters will decide on this point I guess.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

General thoughts.

1. Both Bolshoy Ballet' key D in each pair are their most penalized players (Shore, Dutton). This decreases defensive value of Bolshoy' D AND gives my excellent PP1 great chance to win series for me.

2. My D are too big for Bolshoy' F. Yes, Bolshoy has Kennedy on the 1st line and Dumart on the 2nd line and Walsh liked to play tough as well, but they are not huge and not overly physical. But I have 4 hard-hitting monsters in Pratt, Beck, Armstrong and Russell and Ray Bourque is not soft player at all. Wich is more, 3 of them are really monsters - Pratt is 6-3, 212, Beck is 6-3, 216 and Russell is 6-2, 205. Bourque is 5-11, 219 and Armstrong is 6-1, 190. Also interesting, that all my biggest D are LD and will play against Bolshoy' main goal-scoring threats in Kane and Hejduk (comparatively small and soft players). Each Bolshoy' line has only one puck-retriever and (considering, that that's their main defensive F) they will be deathly tired up to the middle of the series.

3. I have significant firepower advantage. My first line is seriously better offensively, my second line is slightly better offensively and even if Bolshoy' 3d line is better offensively (which is questionable) 3d line will play much less time to be able to turn table. Add here my huge advantage of my 1st pair defensemen' offence. My team will outscore his team.

4. Bolshoy' 1st line is better defensively. 2d, 3d and 4th my lines are better defensively.

2. I could say the same about my top-3 D vs your top forwards.

3. Again the playoff question arises. And even if it weren't the playoffs, the VsX numbers you provided didn't show a "significant" gap.

 

[Namba 17]

It's a pity, Sprague, that you had no time for discussion, when I had. There could've being an interesting conversation. I have no time now and it's too late anyway. Next year, may be

 

[Namba 17]

Congratulations, @Sprague Cleghorn, and good luck!

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

It's a pity, Sprague, that you had no time for discussion, when I had. There could've being an interesting conversation. I have no time now and it's too late anyway. Next year, may be

Yes, sorry. Work sapped out all my energy. Maybe next year!